Every war is a total war

[Richard Dolder]

Then Paradox should add some mechanics to make the player not wanting to add yet another and another wargoal - like severe punishments or a capped amount of wargoals (maybe increasing with time or technology).

Or you can just not let the player add wargoals instead of punishing the player for adding them.
Ck2 solved the "Every war is total war" problem and does so simply and in a way both the player and AI can easily comprehend the goals of the war are clear to everyone. Why reinvent the wheel if your goal is to then punish anyone who doesn't treat it like the wheel.

 

[Shiranui]

OMG I JUST LOLD OUT LOUD AT THIS FUNNY MESSAGE

Yes, you just "laughed out louded out loud" xD

 

[Stadhouder]

Well, in the EU3 timeframe, wars were often started with no clear goal in mind and the peace negotiations often involved the trading of lands which were conquered during the war but weren't involved in the original declaration.

For instance, when the British conquered Canada, it was not because they had a "Conquer Canada" CB.

I disagree. Regarding your example, imperialism (of which colonialism is subset of), might be a broad goal, but still quite clear. Other wars had a goal to gain control over trade or economic resources, settling religious disputes, containing/weakening rivals, etc. No country went ever to war, just to see what the might eventually could get from it.

 

[Esben_DRK]

Then Paradox should add some mechanics to make the player not wanting to add yet another and another wargoal - like severe punishments or a capped amount of wargoals (maybe increasing with time or technology).

I think a mix'n match between CK2 and V2 war-goal/casus belli features would solve that.
This is not as much a reply to you as a further commentary...

In both games, you only get the ability to demand what your casus belli is, but in V2 you can add wargoals. If you have more than one legitimate reason to go to war, you can add it after the initial declaration. If you don't, you can still add a few, taking prestige, infamy and militancy hits (Amounts to prestige, infamy and stability, roughly). Now, in V2, if you can't fulfill your wargoal you get some consequences as well. For example if France declares war on England to regain Normandy, and as the war drags on they add the wargoal to get Gascogne, but at the peace only get one of those, in V2 terms they'd suffer prestige and militancy due to their inability to show their victories to their population.
Adding more than 100 pts of wargoals in V2 will inevitably set yourself up for some good ol' fashioned hostility from your own, even if all your war goals were actually pretty just.

The last part is what I think should be the bar for when both players and AI won't continue to pile more reasons for the war upon the other, perhaps either a war-score-esque system or that it would cost increasing amounts of monarch points to add new wargoals, so that you'd be limited in how much you can do at once.
What I would want from CK2 is mostly how warscore is then calculated, where taking the contested province matters, but taking their worthless desert colony makes you laughing stock.

 

[unmerged(431843)]

Absolutely agree, Ebsen. Also, you should take bigger hits for not achieving your first objective (i.e. the one you stated at the very start of the war) than the ones you added later. It would be brilliant if they could implement this as the war system!

 

[CabalTheFriendlyAI]

Ebsen hit the nail on the head. I honestly would like to see this used for EUIV.

 

[Featauril]

I disagree. Regarding your example, imperialism (of which colonialism is subset of), might be a broad goal, but still quite clear. Other wars had a goal to gain control over trade or economic resources, settling religious disputes, containing/weakening rivals, etc. No country went ever to war, just to see what the might eventually could get from it.

It's true that no country went ever to war just to see what they might eventually get from it. But the peace that was achieved often had little to do with the events starting the war.

Take, say, the war of the league of augsburg. Ostensibly, France had a CB to vassalize the Palatinate and Cologne. At the peace table, they instead conquered/annexed Alsace.

Now what Peter Ebsen suggests may end up being a more easily codable and balanced approach, but if you wanted to portray war resolution accurately in the 1600-1800 period you would need to have a system closer to EU3 than to either Vicky II or CK II.

 

[OP13]

PDS should really do something about the whole war system. I think it's really f***ed up. So much fail there.

- 3 men left in a fort vs 10000 and they won't surrender. Really?

- The whole rolling dice stuff is ridiculous. My 10k army dug in the mountains with my best general, defeated by a 12k army with no leader and inferior tech?? I have muskets and cannons and they have axes and pikes ffs.

- Cascading alliances are so annoying. Declaring war on country X to take back what's mine and I end up fighting half the world, including countries I have been friends and allies with for the past 50 years. So instead of having a war with X and his allies, you get war with X, his allies, his allies' allies and so on. This is just ridiculous.

- As a matter of fact, I think the whole alliance system is ridiculous. There is no defensive alliance!!! I like to keep Aragon an independant nation and I'll defend it against Castille, but why the hell should I help them invade Sicily or Algiers? Also, why does the AI never side with me? I have the biggest and most advanced army, high prestige, my war is rightful and I've been kicking every nation's butt for 200 years but no, Savoy will backstab me and defend Milan (and then become my vassal).

- Why does the AI invade just about anything? Castille owning parts of Sweden and England annexing Italian minors? WTF?

- Why is it that every time you are at war you have to destroy every unit and occupy 3/4 of the country to get a decent peace deal? Holland asking me to give them 100 ducats and release X and Y? I HAVE YOUR 2 PROVINCES SIEGED AND YOU HAVE NO ARMY MORON! CAN'T YOU SEE I'M WINNING THE WAR HERE???

- I'd like to be able to choose which armies I want to maintain full or not. I don't send all my troops to fight and don't want to pay for those 15k stacks staying home during the war (same thing for my navies).

- I hate it when all countries DoW a country I just went to war with and tear it apart. I played a game as France and fought England over Gascogne, Labourd and Calais. Of course, I just had to wait for them to land 5-6 unit stacks and destroy them (so stupid) to win the war (and wait of course, war lasted 8 years, cost them their whole army as well as Portugal's, war capacity 0%, WE 13-14%). Anyway, made peace, got my 3 cores back and suddenly they get DoW'ed by Scotland, Burgundy, Aragon, Castille, Naples, Sweden, Norway and some German minors. Even Algiers took a stab. 2 years later, Wales, Cornwall and Northumberland are released, Scotland owns most of the north while the south is divided between Burgundy, Castille and Sweden. Great. Insta resigned.

 

[Avrelianvs]

PDS should really do something about the whole war system. I think it's really f***ed up. So much fail there.

- 3 men left in a fort vs 10000 and they won't surrender. Really?

- The whole rolling dice stuff is ridiculous. My 10k army dug in the mountains with my best general, defeated by a 12k army with no leader and inferior tech?? I have muskets and cannons and they have axes and pikes ffs.

- Cascading alliances are so annoying. Declaring war on country X to take back what's mine and I end up fighting half the world, including countries I have been friends and allies with for the past 50 years. So instead of having a war with X and his allies, you get war with X, his allies, his allies' allies and so on. This is just ridiculous.

- As a matter of fact, I think the whole alliance system is ridiculous. There is no defensive alliance!!! I like to keep Aragon an independant nation and I'll defend it against Castille, but why the hell should I help them invade Sicily or Algiers? Also, why does the AI never side with me? I have the biggest and most advanced army, high prestige, my war is rightful and I've been kicking every nation's butt for 200 years but no, Savoy will backstab me and defend Milan (and then become my vassal).

- Why does the AI invade just about anything? Castille owning parts of Sweden and England annexing Italian minors? WTF?

- Why is it that every time you are at war you have to destroy every unit and occupy 3/4 of the country to get a decent peace deal? Holland asking me to give them 100 ducats and release X and Y? I HAVE YOUR 2 PROVINCES SIEGED AND YOU HAVE NO ARMY MORON! CAN'T YOU SEE I'M WINNING THE WAR HERE???

- I'd like to be able to choose which armies I want to maintain full or not. I don't send all my troops to fight and don't want to pay for those 15k stacks staying home during the war (same thing for my navies).

- I hate it when all countries DoW a country I just went to war with and tear it apart. I played a game as France and fought England over Gascogne, Labourd and Calais. Of course, I just had to wait for them to land 5-6 unit stacks and destroy them (so stupid) to win the war (and wait of course, war lasted 8 years, cost them their whole army as well as Portugal's, war capacity 0%, WE 13-14%). Anyway, made peace, got my 3 cores back and suddenly they get DoW'ed by Scotland, Burgundy, Aragon, Castille, Naples, Sweden, Norway and some German minors. Even Algiers took a stab. 2 years later, Wales, Cornwall and Northumberland are released, Scotland owns most of the north while the south is divided between Burgundy, Castille and Sweden. Great. Insta resigned.

+1

 

[Hydro Globus]

- 3 men left in a fort vs 10000 and they won't surrender. Really?

Even more annoying is that my vassal, who arrived first, just wouldn't start an assault, and my 24k stack (and my vassal's 1000 men) are just sitting there waiting for the 3 defenders to starve (they won't, they have 1997 fellow defenders to eat)

- The whole rolling dice stuff is ridiculous. My 10k army dug in the mountains with my best general, defeated by a 12k army with no leader and inferior tech?? I have muskets and cannons and they have axes and pikes ffs.

The value rolled does get a lot of modifiers, so it works. A good general is at least +4, tech lead is at least +2, cannons shooting form the back is +1.5 or more (half their Fire), terrain bonus is about +3; all this for a roll of 0-9. You couldn't possibly have lost that battle unless you neglected to pay your army, or you have just assaulted a fort.

- Cascading alliances are so annoying. Declaring war on country X to take back what's mine and I end up fighting half the world, including countries I have been friends and allies with for the past 50 years. So instead of having a war with X and his allies, you get war with X, his allies, his allies' allies and so on. This is just ridiculous.

They did fix some of this in HTTT, and do remember that WWI started when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia because a Bosnian killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Yes, it's another time period, but I think the solution would rather be that AI nations should be less ready to ally with each other, or they should be quicker to dissolve alliances of opportunity.

- As a matter of fact, I think the whole alliance system is ridiculous. There is no defensive alliance!!! I like to keep Aragon an independant nation and I'll defend it against Castille, but why the hell should I help them invade Sicily or Algiers? Also, why does the AI never side with me? I have the biggest and most advanced army, high prestige, my war is rightful and I've been kicking every nation's butt for 200 years but no, Savoy will backstab me and defend Milan (and then become my vassal).

Put defensive alliance in the game! I'll start the picket line.

- Why does the AI invade just about anything? Castille owning parts of Sweden and England annexing Italian minors? WTF?

Because this is not a history simulator, but a game. Human players invade everything as well. The solution, of course, would be imposing costs on territory not directly connected to the capital (if coastal provinces, or connected to the sea, size of navy could mitigate this a lot, because of colonies, pre-HYW England, Venice, and the like).

- Why is it that every time you are at war you have to destroy every unit and occupy 3/4 of the country to get a decent peace deal? Holland asking me to give them 100 ducats and release X and Y? I HAVE YOUR 2 PROVINCES SIEGED AND YOU HAVE NO ARMY MORON! CAN'T YOU SEE I'M WINNING THE WAR HERE???

No, it quite literally can't see. The war capacity algorithm was mentioned before on the forums, and hopefully P'dox will look it over. I too hate those "hope you misclick and accept" peace offers.

- I'd like to be able to choose which armies I want to maintain full or not. I don't send all my troops to fight and don't want to pay for those 15k stacks staying home during the war (same thing for my navies).

+1

- I hate it when all countries DoW a country I just went to war with and tear it apart. I played a game as France and fought England over Gascogne, Labourd and Calais. Of course, I just had to wait for them to land 5-6 unit stacks and destroy them (so stupid) to win the war (and wait of course, war lasted 8 years, cost them their whole army as well as Portugal's, war capacity 0%, WE 13-14%). Anyway, made peace, got my 3 cores back and suddenly they get DoW'ed by Scotland, Burgundy, Aragon, Castille, Naples, Sweden, Norway and some German minors. Even Algiers took a stab. 2 years later, Wales, Cornwall and Northumberland are released, Scotland owns most of the north while the south is divided between Burgundy, Castille and Sweden. Great. Insta resigned.

This is what would happen as a consequence of "every time you are at war you have to destroy every unit and occupy 3/4 of the country to get a decent peace deal". The game is very good at picking targets of opportunity. But even worse is when I, as England, declare war on France to push my claim on the French throne, when suddenly, Savoy, Switzerland, Castille, Milan, Burgundy, Lorraine, Brabant, Denmark and Brittany hold parts of France and its vassals, no-one can get a decent peace deal, so the war just won't end, ever.

 

[Atlanteax]

- I hate it when all countries DoW a country I just went to war with and tear it apart. I played a game as France and fought England over Gascogne, Labourd and Calais. Of course, I just had to wait for them to land 5-6 unit stacks and destroy them (so stupid) to win the war (and wait of course, war lasted 8 years, cost them their whole army as well as Portugal's, war capacity 0%, WE 13-14%). Anyway, made peace, got my 3 cores back and suddenly they get DoW'ed by Scotland, Burgundy, Aragon, Castille, Naples, Sweden, Norway and some German minors. Even Algiers took a stab. 2 years later, Wales, Cornwall and Northumberland are released, Scotland owns most of the north while the south is divided between Burgundy, Castille and Sweden. Great. Insta resigned.

Sometimes I'll actually *stay* at war against a power, if other AI nations have already dog-piled... and wait for the AI to make peace among themselves before I my my peace, so that the 5-yr (now 10yr) truce thing ensures no balkanization just because the AI was super stubborn in negotiations with me.

 

[maxirage]

Hydro Globus, I really don't see the purpose of cascading alliances in EU. Not only is it not representative of most wars in the time period, but even Victoria 2, which is set to simulate world wars, doesn't have cascading alliances. Instead it uses a special category of wars in the late game where any major power can jump in. The ridiculous thing is that every war in EUIII is potentially World War I. It shouldn't work that way.

 

[Premu]

Did cascading alliances even play an important part in history before World War I, like they did in EuIII? I don't think they did.

There was at least one example: The 30-year war. It started as local conflict in Germany, in the end also Sweden, France and Spain was involved.

Probably there are also other examples.

Edit: Perhaps you could also call the War of the league of Cambray an example for cascading alliances (although it involved shifting alliances, too.)

 

[Shiranui]

Some *possibly* possible fixes for cascading alliances (I wouldn't know much about programming)
-make wars more costly so AI doesn't always want to jump in
-make alliances harder to get, add requirements for guarantees (ex. proximity) and more requirements for spheres
-make relations/opinions have a large effect on whether they will join a war against somebody

Some *possibly* possible fixes for "total wars" (again I wouldn't know much about programming)
-make battles count as MUCH more warscore
-make AI less retarded with peace deals, i.e. why in the world would I give you all my money for peace even though your army is obliterated and your capital under siege?
-make losing AI want peace much earlier in the war, especially with high WE

Some *possibly* possible fixes for AI taking random irrelevant provinces (just reminding you that I wouldn't know much about programming in case you miraculously forgot)
-make AI want same-culture and same-religion provinces
-make penalties for wrong-culture provinces and higher religious revolt risk for wrong-religion provinces
-make proximity a much more important factor, especially before the colonial era and especially without a good navy

Again, if I said something ridiculous don't attack me as I wouldn't know much about programming.
Just my two - or rather, three - cents. Or technically 9 cents, because... nevermind.



That was all a quick reply, btw. xD

 

[lemonsquid]

The problem with Eu3 was the cascading alliance. Aragon would call its dear mommy to phone one of her friends whos son is a big blue blob lol

 

[grommile]

- Cascading alliances are so annoying. Declaring war on country X to take back what's mine and I end up fighting half the world, including countries I have been friends and allies with for the past 50 years. So instead of having a war with X and his allies, you get war with X, his allies, his allies' allies and so on. This is just ridiculous.

Thirty Years War. Italian Wars. World War I.

- As a matter of fact, I think the whole alliance system is ridiculous. There is no defensive alliance!!! I like to keep Aragon an independant nation and I'll defend it against Castille, but why the hell should I help them invade Sicily or Algiers?

You can create a one-way defensive arrangement by guaranteeing them.

Also, why does the AI never side with me? I have the biggest and most advanced army, high prestige, my war is rightful and I've been kicking every nation's butt for 200 years but no, Savoy will backstab me and defend Milan (and then become my vassal).

Because the defensive CtA arrives first.

 

[OP13]

Even more annoying is that my vassal, who arrived first, just wouldn't start an assault, and my 24k stack (and my vassal's 1000 men) are just sitting there waiting for the 3 defenders to starve (they won't, they have 1997 fellow defenders to eat)

Agreed. Same goes for allies. I think the alliance leader should be in charge of a siege/battle.

The value rolled does get a lot of modifiers, so it works. A good general is at least +4, tech lead is at least +2, cannons shooting form the back is +1.5 or more (half their Fire), terrain bonus is about +3; all this for a roll of 0-9. You couldn't possibly have lost that battle unless you neglected to pay your army, or you have just assaulted a fort.

Battle was exagerated obv. I just hate to see that dice roll. It works ok most of the time, but I think it's ridiculous to have to rely on a dice to know how your armies are doing in battle. And I do have some examples of ridiculous battles. Fighting Burgundy; full 6k stack of mine is sieging a province, full morale. 7k stack attacks me. No leader for me, their general has +1 shock, +2 manoeuvre. I am 3 techs ahead. They have a -1 modifier for river crossing. Results: about 600 dead on their side while my army gets anhiliated. And I did have a province to retreat to. So, how does a mediocre general manage to completely destroy a better equipped army while crossing a river and losing only 600 men in the process?

They did fix some of this in HTTT, and do remember that WWI started when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia because a Bosnian killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Yes, it's another time period, but I think the solution would rather be that AI nations should be less ready to ally with each other, or they should be quicker to dissolve alliances of opportunity.

Cascading alliances might have happened a few times in history but how many ended up being a total war? I think you shouldn't be allowed to call an ally if you have been called by another ally, just for the sake of not fighting huge unrealistic wars. On the other hand, I think we should have the possibility to create coalitions under certain conditions (and with certain goals).

Put defensive alliance in the game! I'll start the picket line.

Amen.

Because this is not a history simulator, but a game. Human players invade everything as well. The solution, of course, would be imposing costs on territory not directly connected to the capital (if coastal provinces, or connected to the sea, size of navy could mitigate this a lot, because of colonies, pre-HYW England, Venice, and the like).

I agree it's not a history simulator but the AI's actions should be a little more realistic. I just hate to see Castille or England owning provinces here and there. It just makes no sense.

No, it quite literally can't see. The war capacity algorithm was mentioned before on the forums, and hopefully P'dox will look it over. I too hate those "hope you misclick and accept" peace offers.

Hopefully? If PDS does not make major changes for EU4, I will not buy it. The game itself is pretty good (with all the add ons obv) but these issues are just killing it imho.

This is what would happen as a consequence of "every time you are at war you have to destroy every unit and occupy 3/4 of the country to get a decent peace deal". The game is very good at picking targets of opportunity. But even worse is when I, as England, declare war on France to push my claim on the French throne, when suddenly, Savoy, Switzerland, Castille, Milan, Burgundy, Lorraine, Brabant, Denmark and Brittany hold parts of France and its vassals, no-one can get a decent peace deal, so the war just won't end, ever.

Another thing Paradox needs to fix...

 

[OP13]

Thirty Years War. Italian Wars. World War I.

That's 3 wars in 400 years. I fight these kind of wars every 5 years.

You can create a one-way defensive arrangement by guaranteeing them.

One-way...

Because the defensive CtA arrives first.

I'll admit that.

 

[grommile]

That's 3 wars in 400 years. I fight these kind of wars every 5 years.

Then you're choosing your targets somewhat poorly. I seldom see serious cascades unless I'm attacking a low-prestige Catholic HRE state as an outsider while someone like Castille or France is the Catholic DotF.

 

[MilosM]

Then you're choosing your targets somewhat poorly. I seldom see serious cascades unless I'm attacking a low-prestige Catholic HRE state as an outsider while someone like Castille or France is the Catholic DotF.

Well it is not just about player, world wars are always active in EU, it doesn't matter who started them.